Per the article even Regeneron wants to walk a tight rope claiming they don’t consider the “immortalized” cell line to be fetal tissue anymore, despite its concrete origins as such. I’m pro-choice...
Per the article even Regeneron wants to walk a tight rope claiming they don’t consider the “immortalized” cell line to be fetal tissue anymore, despite its concrete origins as such.
I’m pro-choice but I can at least partially understand being against abortion. What I can’t understand is, regardless of your stance on the abortion itself, why you’d be against using that resulting tissue for obvious good after-the-fact.
I mean what about donated miscarriage or stillbirth tissue? They seem to be against that too in most cases and I don’t see the moral dilemma there at all.
That’s a stance not to support the demand for animal slaughter, which I get. As far as I know there is no demand as such for abortions to get these tissue samples. It’s a consequence of what...
That’s a stance not to support the demand for animal slaughter, which I get. As far as I know there is no demand as such for abortions to get these tissue samples. It’s a consequence of what people just do naturally. Pro-life people should ultimately be pro contraceptive but we know how that goes...
i guess the way i imagine the line of thinking is: i don’t support x. therefore, i don’t support anything that derives from x. personally, I think pro-lifers need to re-brand themselves as...
i guess the way i imagine the line of thinking is: i don’t support x. therefore, i don’t support anything that derives from x.
personally, I think pro-lifers need to re-brand themselves as “pro-birth”, cuz it doesn’t seem they give a damn about a child’s quality-of-life once it’s born.
It’s literally every single thing Trump and Republicans have said they are against rolled up into one hypocritical story.
Per the article even Regeneron wants to walk a tight rope claiming they don’t consider the “immortalized” cell line to be fetal tissue anymore, despite its concrete origins as such.
I’m pro-choice but I can at least partially understand being against abortion. What I can’t understand is, regardless of your stance on the abortion itself, why you’d be against using that resulting tissue for obvious good after-the-fact.
I mean what about donated miscarriage or stillbirth tissue? They seem to be against that too in most cases and I don’t see the moral dilemma there at all.
It's very difficult to reason someone out of a viewpoint they didn't reason themselves into.
i’d guess it’d be similar to vegetarians/vegans not eating meet that is already on shelves?
That’s a stance not to support the demand for animal slaughter, which I get. As far as I know there is no demand as such for abortions to get these tissue samples. It’s a consequence of what people just do naturally. Pro-life people should ultimately be pro contraceptive but we know how that goes...
i guess the way i imagine the line of thinking is: i don’t support
x. therefore, i don’t support anything that derives fromx.personally, I think pro-lifers need to re-brand themselves as “pro-birth”, cuz it doesn’t seem they give a damn about a child’s quality-of-life once it’s born.